Christie steps in deep doo-doo, promptly apologizes to Adelson. Whew!

All heck broke loose at the Adelson 2016 Primary in Las Vegas yesterday when Chris Christie, the embattled New Jersey governor still immersed in the bridgegate scandal, uttered the words “occupied territory” during an otherwise enrapturing speech in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

A hush fell over the crowd. Politico reports that ZOA president Morton Klein was aghast and confronted Christie after the speech and reported the incident to Adelson. (Read Klein’s lecture here.)

And so later, in a private session in Adelson’s office in Venetian Casino where GOP’ers are shuffling in an out this weekend for a slice of his billions, many vying for the presidential anointment, Christie apologized.

Not long after his speech, Christie met with Adelson privately in the casino mogul’s office in the Venetian hotel and casino, which hosted the RJC meeting.

The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement of policy.”

Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”

Oh to be a fly on that wall.

Meanwhile, Politico, in an attempt to educate its readers about the depth of the infraction, goes on to say this:

The term refers to lands in which Palestinians live where Israel maintains a military presence, including the West Bank.

Excuse me? Perhaps Politico is not aware the term refers to lands designated “Occupied Territory” under international law. The US State Department also considers the West Bank occupied. And the UN describes Gaza as occupied, as well. Why? Because it’s under military control. Israel disputing that doesn’t turn it into disputed territory. These are legal terms and cannot be changed at the whim or will of an occupying regime. Maybe Politico is kowtowing too.

Christie stepped on a fault line in highly fraught Middle East politics, when he referred to the “occupied territories,” a term Zionists eschew….

Morton Klein, president of the hawkish Zionist Organization of America, was less forgiving. He confronted Christie after his speech about his use of the term, telling POLITICO he explained to the New Jersey governor that “at minimum you should call it disputed territories.”

Klein said he mentioned the issue to Adelson, who promised he’d raise it in private with Christie.

Christie was non-committal, said Klein, who concluded afterwards that the governor “either doesn’t understand the issue at all, or he’s hostile to Israel.”

(Hat tip Icarus Verum)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

105 Responses

The remark was public but the apology private (tho reported, and hence public)? What is the public deemed to make of it? Show of Zionist muscle, quite proper, nothing wrong, why’d anyone even mention it? Or — how revolting, cannot call a spade a spade around here!

No wonder the zios hate the UN and worked so hard to “deArabize” the State Dept (as Bill Krystol proudly attested), which never had any Arab Americans in it back then. (Any now? Maybe one or two janitors?)

Not long after his speech, Christie met with Adelson privately in the casino mogul’s office in the Venetian hotel and casino, which hosted the RJC meeting.

The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement of policy.”

Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”

@dbroncos – Not in jeopardy because of the ugly wicked witch of Vegas. That one obtained abject obeisance (meaning, as Brown-Eyed Girl rightly says, fellating a donkey), which is preferred to a sans-faute. May even have been planned.
As for his becoming whatever-in-chief, there is nothing inherently worse in him compared to Obama etc. who also did his fellating in the presence of Saban.

Does anyone remember that Saturday Night Live skit, where they spoofed the confirmation hearings of Chuck Hagel and one of the “senators” asked Hagel if he would fellate a donkey for Israel? Well, Christie just fellated a donkey for Sheldon Adleson!

The cable tv news, especially Fox is yakking away about all the GOP hopefuls in Vegas, and Adelson is a big part of the yakking–not a single yak about Adelson’s self-described top agenda item: Israel First.

eljay, I don’t think he is sorry or grovelling enough, he should consult Samantha Power and Professor Dershowitz for advice on the correct and full slobbering apology. Otherwise he will not get their millions.

You may be right. The lengths politicos like Christie are prepared to go to in order to pleas(ur)e their Zio-supremacist masters and to fulfill their ambitions is utterly shameful. And they never cease to amaze me.

Don’t get too excited over this stuff– just keep notes and names for future use.
Every time I see this kind of thing I am tempted to shoot off a mail or make a call lambasting these cretins but that’s really not the thing to do.
We don’t want them to go back underground or keep it private.
Give them all the rope they are willing to take, let them proclaim their fidelity to Israel even more and take their 30 pieces of silver in full view of the public.
When the next elections get going or when the sh@t eventually hits the fan, then you can use it on them.

When the next elections get going or when the sh@t eventually hits the fan, then you can use it on them.

i have not looked at it today but last night i took a glimpse at the comment section over at politico’s ‘apology’ link and readers were disgusted. there was one repetitive poster slinging around the anti semite accusation but other than that the steam (which was over 250 comments) didn’t have many defending zionist’s attempted grip on the discourse.

that’s probably all changed as the trolls tend to cloister later on when the waves of anger come fast on those threads. they’ll pepper it lavishly after the crowds have gone home. but when i saw it, just pure revulsion and disgust.

something tells me the walls will come crashing down on these politicians groveling for money and approval from the lobby, one of these days. hope it happens by the next election.

Yep. Good to know. That was how opinion was running long ago even about Isr and the I -influence and why the WP and NYT shut down their comments sections on Israel topics.
Americans aren’t quite as stupid as they think, we just don’t get the msm air time or coverage….and scary to them is our opinons might be catching…people might start to realize they aren’t alone in their opinons.

I’m as suspicious of the MSM as anyone and as disgusted by its failure to cover/condemn Israeli crimes against humanity, but is it really because the MSM is “Jewish owned?” Could there not be some other dynamic at work here? Has anybody done the actual research to find out who owns what and what their interests are?

I have also pointed out that this is why Jews who support BDS are never mentioned by those same media owners. No wonder considering Richard Falk begins his story of the history of US Israel relations with the attack on the USS Liberty. If you know of a Jewish owned major media outlet that opposes Israel’s ethnic cleansing policies, please share it with us. Incidentally, Einstein pointed out in the 1920’s that it was a myth that Jewish owned German banks added up to serious money though he noted in the same speech that the owners of German newspapers were disproportionately Jewish. It is obvious that Israel’s ever more terrible treatment of the Palestinians is not unlike the early Hitler long before the mass killings of Jews. Why do the owners of our media who are Jewish miss that?

Maybe it’s because they’re Zionists themselves (I actually suspect this) but there could be other reasons. Fear of a Zionist backlash and loss of revenue, since ironically Zionists seem very happy with imposing their own boycotts and evangelical Christians will start one at the drop of televangelist’s hat. Maybe a perception that the American public already sides with Israel so they play safe and give the public what they think it wants (a feedback loop I know but people are quite good at creating them). It could be a desire not to rock the establishment boat – lots of MIC money in I/P and a lot of these media companies are parts of conglomerates with board members being shared around – the old “follow the money” thing. Perhaps an unwillingness to confront the truth – moral cowardice, or even they just want a quiet life at home and not to start a veritable war with their Zionist friends and family. Look what happened to Goldstone.

There are lots of possible reasons and I don’t like just jumping to the “they’re Jews therefore everything they do is down to Zionism” conclusion. It’s simplistic and it’s a tad dodgy on the “anti-semitic” front. It might be true in this case, I personally suspect it is a big chunk of the reason, but you can only find the truth by asking the sodding question in the first place.

And that way when someone like Hoppy screams “anti-semitism” you can slap ‘em round the face with “No – it’s the truth and we’ve done the bloody research to prove it!”

That’s a piece of research that would instantly be labeled anti-Semitic. The question itself leads to indictment. “What’s wrong with Jewish people owning things?” is the instant retort. It might be worth taking the tarring. During the 80’s the “multicultural movement” worked to get under-represented voices – Black, Latino, Native American – into the media. It certainly appears that there is a mammoth statistical over-representation of Jewish voices in the American MSM. Read the “above the line” credits (Exec Producer, Producer, Director) on most network programs. There are far more than 3% of the names that are non-gentile, but not quite 3% of the American public are self identified Jews.

Okay, I’ll admit that article is honest, but again, like most Jews writing about Jewish success why resurrect the Holocaust? I can’t stand it when Jews milk the Holocaust or use it to explain away everything. I understand it’s a tragic milestone, but don’t use it to explain Jewish success. Instead examine the issues of needing to control and pursuing power. Sure there’s a success-driven element there in certain fields; but too often this success is about wanting to control the message, the direction and the outcome and often for selfish needs and ends that contradict a higher more humane or universal purpose.

Out of the whole text I found this phrase the most inaccurate and disingenuous:

[Jews]…they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.

@ Daniel Rich
The article you link to mentions a meeting where a speaker tells the audience of students AIPAC selects 50 top academic Gentile students to train them to take over the US government. This seems to jibe with the article on this blog a week or two ago about the Harvard Israel Trek selectees posing at the PLO leader’s memorial.

It may come as a surprise but I have no desire to shift through all the conspiratorial crap about “Jewish ownership of the MSM” on the Internet if somebody else has already done the work for me. Why on earth would I?

But tell me is it now forbidden to request information here? Is this somehow not “pure anti-Israel” or “anti-Jewish” enough for you? Must we just accept every Zionist conspiracy theory out there for “the cause.” Oh yes that works really well – campaigning for human rights and equality in Israel by denigrating people based on their ethnicity.

So please, and understand I say this with the utmost contempt thinkinghurts, sod off – there’s a good chap.

Ted Pike’s comment: The prestigious Encyclopedia Judaica, in its article “Motion Pictures,” pg. 449, says: “Thus all the large Hollywood companies, with the exception of United Artists…were founded and controlled by Jews.”

In its article on New York City, the Judaica adds to the list of publishing houses owned by Jews, Liveright & Boni, and Anchor Books.

Today Random House, Doubleday, and Anchor Books, while Jewish owned and controlled, participate in the world’s largest publishing consortium, Bertelsmann A.G., benefiting from its staggering distribution advantages. End of Ted Pike’s comments.

Bertelsmann’s American operations are headed by Joel Klein, chair and CEO.

David Manaker is executive director for HarperCollins.

Newspapers:

Samuel Newhouse Jr. and Donald Newhouse own Newhouse Publications, which includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities. The Conde Nast Magazine Group includes the New Yorker, Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplements, American City Business Journal, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America, and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving one million homes.

Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kahn, CEO

New York Times, Boston Globe, and other publications: published by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.

New York Daily News: Mortimer Zuckerman, owner

Village Voice, New Times and network of alternative weeklies: Owned by David Schneiderman

“Rupert Murdoch (Jewish mother)”
Incorrect.
“Elisabeth Murdoch was born in Melbourne on 8 February 1909, the third daughter of Marie Grace de Lancey (Forth) and Rupert Greene. Her grandfather, William Henry Greene, was an Irish railway engineer (later one of the three Commissioners of Victorian Railways) who emigrated to Australia and married Fanny, the fourth of the 10 daughters of George Govett.[1] Her mother’s ancestors were Scottish and English; one of her maternal great-grandfathers was a lieutenant governor in the West Indies.[2] Elisabeth was educated at St Catherine’s School in Toorak, and at Clyde School in Woodend.”link to en.wikipedia.org

Even if Jews owned 100% our our big media, that would not be the issue. The point is that 100% of these Jews support Israel’s ethnic cleansing. If anyone can name a single execption who has gone public with their opposition, please share the name.

The actual research has actually been done many times and even Jews admit the overwhelming presence of Jews in the media arena in executive management and ownership roles. You’d have to be living under a rock or newly arrived on the planet not to know this. And it’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise or try to hide this fact even for the sake of avoiding anti-Semitism.

Those who ignore truth discover that it starts to work against them. Honesty is always the best policy. The problem is not having power; (although having too much power is) the problem is lusting after power and how you use it. With power comes great responsibility; once that power turns into control for the sake of exceptionalism or tribalism then it’s a serious problem.

jsinton is correct:
Yes, can you use the internet? Here’s a jump start on just how few corporations (5 or 6) and their executives (283) control 90% of everything of what Americans see, hear, read via media:link to businessinsider.com

Citizen- Maybe you were not aware, but the quote at the top of the unjustmedia link is a hoax. Or has been accused of being a hoax. If you quote questionable sources with hoaxes as quotes, it casts a shadow on your point. Don’t you think?

So apparently just asking for information is now beyond the pale. My what a bunch of f’ckwits there are on Mondoweiss at the moment, every bit as bad as the f’cking Zionists.

And really? Can I use the internet? Well as it happens no I can’t. I have absolutely no idea how my words appear here without my even having a phone or being able to connect a modem or keyboard to my non-existent computer.

For your info – that was sarcasm. And mockery. Lots of mockery. Maybe when you find the on switch for that noodle you call a brain you’ll understand what those words meant. But somehow I doubt it.

Ecru, calm down buddy. From reading past comments on your profile I believe, generally speaking, we are all on the same page. Some people might be giving you shit for a misunderstanding. When you asked, “Has anybody done the actual research to find out who owns what and what their interests are?” I believe some people thought you may be doubting the fact that jews own a majority of MSM outlets. This research has been done quite extensively by numerous individuals, some jewish ones for bragging purposes.

The list above that Kay24 provided, aside from a few recent changes, is accurate. Some comments directed at you were certainly undeserved im only trying to shed some light on why that occurred. I feel like a referee lol

Thank you I will attempt to calm down. And you both look lovely in those black and white ensembles by the way – vertical stripes are just so you.

But just to clarify here’s the question that caused all the hubbub :-

I’m as suspicious of the MSM as anyone and as disgusted by its failure to cover/condemn Israeli crimes against humanity, but is it really because the MSM is “Jewish owned?”

Now I admit there are differences between American and Real English ( ;) ) but are they truly this serious?

There’s no question there about who owns the media, that phrasing would have been closer to:-

…crimes against humanity, but is the MSM really “Jewish owned?”

Note the difference. However there is a question about what the motives are for concealing Israeli malfeasance. The important word here being “because.” Little word but makes a lot of difference.

Basically I’m not happy with the “they hide it because they’re Jews” line. Simply put if that were true then this site wouldn’t exist being as it was founded by Jewish people. I’d have thought that was obvious. I’d just be happier with the accusation if someone had done the actual digging to find out for sure.

Purchasers of advertising were and are often able to wield influence. Punch Sulzberger used to say that the New York Times could expect greatly reduced spending by big NY department stores, for a few weeks, if NYT got too far out of line on an issue related to Israel.

“The one thing Adelson doesn’t need to waste his money on is our Jewish owned media conglomerates who already give 100% support to Israel’s efforts to wipe out the Palestinians.”

Antisemitic comment
>>>>>>

Somewhat true comment. If one narrows it down to not exactly ‘totally owned by” but ‘under the control of Pro Israel Jew’s.

The networks are almost all merged under one or two conglomerates.
MSNBC for instance started out as a Microsoft and GE co-owned network that also came to be incorporate into NBC Universal.
Corporate buys and merging of the media went wild when congress debated and then failed to pass laws against monopolies back in the early 90’s.
So the media has gone thru buy outs and morphing into one or two conglomerate ownerships.

Then ‘Comcast’ bought half of NBC Universal (MSNBC included) from GE long ago then bought other 50% a year ago.

Comcast is a publically traded stockholder company but is controlled by CEO Brian Roberts who owns 1% but has 33% of the voting rights along with his second in Command Don Kaplan who is also Jewish.

Roberts is ‘actively Jewish and pro Israel’ He was the recipient of the 2004 Humanitarian Award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center and was the 2002 Walter Kaitz Foundation Honoree of the Year. In 2001, he was awarded the USC Shoah Foundation Institute’s 2011 Ambassador.

Its not hard to assume that his I &J dedication influences who he hires and then who his hires hire as producers of news and why we don’t hear real facts or much criticism of Israel.

Its not necessarily owning lock stock and barrel, its in who has the actual executive control of it.

Isn’t the term they want – “Judea and Samaria”? But shouldn’t Judea also include historical places outside of the West Bank? Doesn’t Judea include places to the west of Jerusalem, not to mention Jerusalem itself?

One of the many charges leveled against Hamas and incidentally against Iran is that none of them support Oslo peace process. Peace process is a sham illusion .but is it not the time to expose and sanction these individuals who come up with this type of demand? What is there for processing if occupation is not admitted?

Adelson and the other Zionists are in a panic over the increasing likelihood that Rand Paul will be the next Republican nominee for the presidency (and he’s probably the only Republican who could beat Hillary Clinton in 2016).

If Rand Paul is nominated the neocons will flock to Hillary just as they switched sides to Nixon when McGovern threatened to trim the military budget and to Reagan after Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Accords:

Irving Kristol:
“Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”link to mondoweiss.net

Norman Podhoretz:
“The night Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, I watched the returns in the company of a group of intellectuals who were so jubilant at the news of the mounting landslide that a passing stranger might have taken them for professional Republican Party workers or perhaps for fervent ideological conservatives.
In fact, however, most of them were registered Democrats. Some had never before voted for a Republican; or if they had, it would have been in a local race and for a liberal of the species, such as Jacob Javits or John Lindsay in his original political incarnation. Others had voted for Richard Nixon in 1972, but only because as compared with George McGovern he seemed the lesser evil; most of them had gone for Hubert Humphrey against Nixon in 1968. In voting for Nixon even against McGovern they felt uneasy, not merely because they had always disliked Nixon, but also because in deserting the Democratic Party they were breaking with a tradition to which they had been loyal all their political lives. On the other hand, they felt that in nominating George McGovern, who stood for values that departed in almost every respect from that tradition, the Democratic Party had deserted them. They would certainly have supported any of McGovern’s Democratic rivals – Humphrey, Henry Jackson, Edmund Muskie – and when in 1976 the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter, a candidate who seemed closer to the central tradition of the party than to the McGovernite wing (now led by Edward Kennedy), most of them supported him over his Republican rival, Gerald Ford.
Why then, less than four years later, were so many of them cheering for Ronald Reagan?”link to nytimes.com

Last week, the Washington Post published a listing of Paul’s inner circle of backers. I spotted not one Zionist in the bunch, and the list was led by billionaire gay activist and libertarian Peter Thiel, cofounder of PayPal. I don’t think Paul needs Adelson’s money.

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul, unfortunately. It could be that he is politically smarter and knows what to say or not say to get elected, and will hopefully be more like Ron after the election. I am a little nervous about him, but given the pack to choose from, he is by far the better choice. One day, we won’t have to choose the lesser of two evils…

Would love to be the fly on the wall listening to Rand and Daddy Paul discussing AIPAC. Including how Obama was compromised after his courageous Cairo speech. But first, how to beat the zios at their own game?

Easy to do…..lie,lie, lie, take their money and then double cross them if you’re elected. lol
Paul should have private meetings with them and tell them what his real ME policy is is actually to make Israel the Super Cop in the ME to relieve the US of that chore in keeping with his stated FP policy of the US (itself) not being as involved abroad.
They would luv that!

MY COMMENT: Chris Christie will be doing penance for the remainder of his life in a futile attempt at absolving himself of the mortal sin of referring to the West Bank . . . OOPS, I mean “Judea and Samaria”, as the the “occupied territories”! ! !
The only way to avoid a repetition of this problem is for Christie to let AIPAC literally put the words in his mouth (at least as to the Middle East).

Not in the Sheldon primary this weekend or at the Republican Jewish Coalition is Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who also is considering a 2016 run.

But Paul’s absence is not due, as some have speculated, to differences with Adelson over U.S. policy towards Israel.

“Senator Paul has a long-standing family commitment this weekend,” Doug Stafford, executive director of Paul’s political action committee RAND PAC, said in an e-mail…..the senator has met previously with the Republican Jewish Coalition and was invited to the Las Vegas event as well, Stafford said.

While Paul son is no Paul father; I imagine Rand Paul will cut foreign funding to Egypt and Israel radically or completely in his first year in office. And then there will be no more milllions added to the billions already spent on the bogus two-state, peace process endless bullshet denial, because you know Hillary will carry that kicking-the-can ritual forward.

So even if he doesn’t further the Palestinian cause with direct policy change towards Israel, besides the above, or lip service; he’ll further it indirectly by pulling a financial support to the occupation and doing away with what is really a cover for settlement expansion.

I imagine he’ll say: This conflict is no longer our problem; everything that could possibly be done was done and perhaps our problem was over-involvement..

Of course, he’ll be attacked from all sides by Jewish and Christian Zionists. But everyone else will be squarely in his corner on this one; unless he fiddles with major social programs, but he can always say he’s re-directing foreign spending to keep domestic social programs as is, and do some restructuring in other areas like…defense spending and closing a few military bases. Oh and no doubt he’ll cut off the surveillance aka snooping program. Yay!

He better get himself massive security detail, and I see all kinds of false flags to bring down his presidency, if he should get that far. I’m being way too cynical…the best we can hope is that he creates a new direction of non-intervention; stops the insanity of hegemonic regime change proxy wars, and Americans finally stop supporting the pariah state. Forget my cynicism…anything to hope for is way better.

Then I have to ask myself, ‘Do you know what it feels like to be occupied?’ or ‘What would your life look like if the day the expulsion and occupation began [in ‘48] was the same day your grandmother was born?’

The answer is, “No, I don’t. I can interpolate whatever I have seen in countries where communists ruled with an iron fist or dictators, but that’s it.”

So, let’s focus on that ‘suicide bomber’ or the occasional ‘crude rocket’ instead. Make sure all your assets {MSM} do not look at the cause of the symptoms [the occupation], but point at the outcome of it [intifada].

Is there anybody out there who’s not utterly appalled to see all this groveling and kneeling down [by goy] at the altar of a Jew?

Maybe it’s because I’m a kibbutz kinda guy and that mentality doesn’t work well in an environment where greed is praised and passed onward on celluloid [Badgers of Bolivia]…

On the other hand [the much ‘poorer’ one]: Despite misgivings over US President Barack Obama’s Mideast agenda and deep-rooted doubts about his ability to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, the Israeli government is taking the US president at his word that it can expect another decade of military aid. LINK

Where are the cajones on these politicians? That they say one word get all nervous about being on the receiving end of a talking to from Morton Klein or Adelson? Maybe next time Christie will be told to park his porky rear on Adelson’s lap for a proper spanking. How dare he say “occupied”? That’s reserved for restrooms only. Israel and Palestine are merely in a “dispute.” The kind two drunk friends at the bar get into when arguing over which team is going to make it to the NBA Finals. No big deal you guys. No big deal at all.

To many people here the Zionists are “all the same”. However, there are different schools, with the main division that I dub “piano” and “forte”. Forte option is one-state supremacism: everything Hebrews ever possessed is indispensable to “Jewish identity”, a mystic construct that requires utter devotion from Jews and deference from non-antisemitic non-Jews. Piano option actually foresees some kind of peace and certain rights for non-Jews (sub-schools have different views what is a fair or “realistic” peace and how one can abridge minority rights).

ZOA is financed by forte Zionists, or Zionist extremists, and Adelson is their top sugar daddy. So this mass kowtow in Las Vegas is obeisance to extremist Zionism.

I think that this is an important distinction. The extremist Zionist ideology is certifiably insane, and as long as it is not acclaim as such, what we can observe is a rotten compromise between a messianic-fascistic movement and a “normal narrow minded nationalism” as a lodestone of American foreign policy. No progress is possible without making the extremists laughing stock or worse in the eyes of American public.

The problem with your statement, and you said it yourself, is that what you call “Piano” Zionists foresee “some kind of peace and certain rights for non-Jews.” When you allow one group to have “certain” rights but not all the rights that they are due, that is still a very big problem. Non-Jews…and let’s be honest here, you’re talking about Arabs, more specifically Palestinians….and Jews should be completely and totally equal. Israel is not in a position to define what rights a person should or should not have. Frankly, it is not Israel’s place and it does not have the power nor the authority to prevent the full realization of all inalienable rights due to the Palestinian population or to any other group of people. Faux Liberal or Progressive Zionists can pretend as much as they want, that they are more in tune with human rights and peace building and conflict resolution but the reality remains that they are part of a bigger ideology that is racist and evil.

Every ideology has “evil extensions”. What I am saying is that liberal Zionists have a chance to show that they are “genuine” rather then “piano version for the sake of effective propaganda” by repudiating nuts like ZOA, Adelson and so on.

This article is an example of more kowtowing to Sheldon Adelson’s money. The Republican candidates such as Chris Christie have shown their true colors, haven’t they?

Having said that, let me add that the pro-Israeli lobby has done an outstanding job controlling BOTH sides of the aisle. Hillary Rodham Clinton, while Secretary of State, did NOTHING to stop the Israelis’ illegal land grab of Palestinian lands.

What we have is a need for campaign finance reform. Then people like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the whole Wall Street gang will have no more influence than the rest of us.

Pat Buchanan has an excellent article in Antiwar.com here..link to original.antiwar.com Adelson’s response was recorded by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website who was at Yeshiva and filmed the interview. Weiss says the audience cheered Adelson’s proposed nuclear strike on Iran and no one on the stage, not Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, peeped a word of dissent.
And this is a “very rational guy,” who doesn’t want “a crazy extremist to be the nominee”?

Did you see which map Jon Stewart used for “Occupied Territories”?
I just watched it. Apparently, Stewart believes that the areas with the settlements are not occupied. Actually, these areas are particularly occupied.link to nj.com

Another Adelson’s ass kisser.
He referred to Adelson as “ultra Zionist”. Only a “liberal” Zionist would do that. If Stewart were an anti-Zionist, he would just call Adelson a Zionist.

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

Get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox every morning and stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in the Middle East!

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.